logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2019.06.26 2018가단109710
채무부존재확인
Text

1. A notary public shall make a debt reimbursement contract (Quasi-Loan for Consumption) No. 699 of March 20, 2006, No. 306, which was drawn up by the notary public.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant around November 2005 through the latter D. Around November 2005.

B. On February 13, 2006, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 17,500,000 as of February 16, 2006 for daily living expenses and living expenses, and issued the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression to the Defendant on the same day on the loan transaction agreement stating that “the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 17,50,000 for daily living expenses and living expenses.”

C. On March 20, 2006, the defendant prepared a power of attorney in the name of the plaintiff as to the preparation of the notarial deed with a certificate of personal seal issued by the plaintiff, and on March 20, 2006, the notary public and the defendant acknowledged that "the plaintiff's obligation to the defendant is KRW 17,50,000,00" as the representative of the plaintiff, and requested the law firm C to prepare a notarial deed of debt repayment (quasi-loan loan) with the purport that "if the plaintiff fails to perform this obligation immediately, he shall have no objection even if he is subject to compulsory execution." The notary public made a notarial deed of the above content (hereinafter "notarial deed of this case") as 699 on the same day by a notary public.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Evidence No. 4, Evidence No. 2-1, and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff: (a) lent money to the gambling room established by the Defendant for money; and (b) made the instant notarial deed concerning the obligation to borrow money. The Plaintiff’s obligation based on the instant notarial deed as to the Defendant’s impartiality is effective as it is based on illegal consideration; (c) as such, there is no obligation based on the instant notarial deed; (d) the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant would lend money necessary for electrical construction; and (e) from the middle of November 2005 to the middle of December 2005.

arrow